So it appears that the Pats got a low 1st high 2nd pick in Cannon.

[BlueThunder]

BTW..Jets took Bilal Powell at pick 126......

If Tanny had Ridley rated higherthan Powell, you know they would have moved up to pick ahead of Pats should BB have not chose to make the pick early and bail out for a while.........

We'll never know, but Kiper is not a draft guru, he's a sideshow barker...:singing:

 

[Deus Irae]

Since we don't know their board the only way to claim whether it was a "reach" or not is performance. Right now Brace and Butler look like "reaches," but Vollmer looks like he was more than worth it, and he was called a "reach" by pretty much everyone, he wasn't even invited to the Cobine.

We seem to go through this every year. What's on the Patriots board is not what defines a reach/steal. What defines a reach/steal is a comparison of where the general consensus has a player going with where that player actually goes.

Cannon's a steal if he recovers and can play, because he was originally viewed as a high round pick who ended up getting taken low due to his problems. The RBs are reaches because they were viewed as being lower picks. Whether any of them are quality players is a different question.

It's fine to trot out the "BB's draft board is different!" argument as a way of saying that you don't care if a player is a reach. However, that doesn't change the player to being a non-reach and, if it did, it would negate the "steal/great value" argument in the other direction since, if BB's draft board is different, claims that a player was supposed to go higher simply don't apply because the same "Patriots have a different board" aspect would be in play.

 

[townes]

We seem to go through this every year. What's on the Patriots board is not what defines a reach/steal. What defines a reach/steal is a comparison of where the general consensus has a player going with where that player actually goes.

Cannon's a steal if he recovers and can play, because he was originally viewed as a high round pick who ended up getting taken low due to his problems. The RBs are reaches because they were viewed as being lower picks. Whether any of them are quality players is a different question.

It's fine to trot out the "BB's draft board is different!" argument as a way of saying that you don't care if a player is a reach. However, that doesn't change the player to being a non-reach and, if it did, it would negate the "steal/great value" argument in the other direction since, if BB's draft board is different, claims that a player was supposed to go higher simply don't apply because the same "Patriots have a different board" aspect would be in play.

Actually my argument is that the only way to deem a pick a reach or a steal is how they play, stating it as fact during or right after the draft is folly for the most part. Maroney was a "reach" and Vollmer was a "steal," and we can say that because we have seen the results, claiming Mankins was a "reach" has turned out to be complete garbage because we now know they had him rated properly all along and it was the kiper's of the world who didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[Shelterdog]

We seem to go through this every year. What's on the Patriots board is not what defines a reach/steal. What defines a reach/steal is a comparison of where the general consensus has a player going with where that player actually goes.

The thing is the "general consensus" might not--and often does not--actually reflect how NFL teams actually value players. I have no problem saying Ridley or Vereen are reaches against the general consensus; they both went earlier than Kiper said they would. But that doesn't mean they were picked too earlier; for all we know all sorts of other teams really valued those two and would have picked them soon after the Pats picked them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually my argument is that the only way to deem a pick a reach or a steal is how they play, stating it as fact during or right after the draft is folly for the most part. Maroney was a "reach" and Vollmer was a "steal," and we can say that because we have seen the results, claiming Mankins was a "reach" has turned out to be complete garbage because we now know they had him rated properly all along and it was the kiper's of the world who didn't know what they were talking about.

Reach and steal are all about draft positioning. In the immediate post-draft discussion, the future level of play does not yet exist, so it's irrelevant.

And your Mankins argument makes no sense at all. Mankins is an All Pro and multi-time Pro Bowler. Using your argument, Belichick was an idiot for waiting until the end of the round to take Mankins. He should have traded up much higher, in order to be 100% positive that he got that player.

 

[Spiral]

As I have said before, this was great reach for a player that would likely been there at 92 and perhaps 125. However, since Belichick was already committed to trading those picks, Ridley became the right choice at 73.

If this is true, why wouldn't Bill have traded 73 instead of 92/125?

 

[Deus Irae]

The thing is the "general consensus" might not--and often does not--actually reflect how NFL teams actually value players. I have no problem saying Ridley or Vereen are reaches against the general consensus; they both went earlier than Kiper said they would. But that doesn't mean they were picked too earlier; for all we know all sorts of other teams really valued those two and would have picked them soon after the Pats picked them.

Kiper, whom so many here love to bash, is not general consensus. He's one draft geek among many. Other than at the very top of the draft, steal/reach isn't generally about a few spots up or down, but about many spots or rounds, and that's generally the result of all sorts of scouts, analysts, geeks, etc... anticipating the basic flow of how a draft will fall. It's not just non-NFL people who help form these opinions, either.

 

[townes]

We seem to go through this every year. What's on the Patriots board is not what defines a reach/steal. What defines a reach/steal is a comparison of where the general consensus has a player going with where that player actually goes.

.

What defines a "reach" or a "steal" is where the Patriots have players rated and where they take them, not what some guy on a draft site says, the experts are the scouts and personel people not the "draft experts," most of whom have never drafted a player. Gil Brandt has credibility, Mel Kiper doesn't, in fact, iirc kiper actually changed 9 of his first round selections to those of McShay the night before the Draft, hardly the mark of someone who has done the evaluations for themself.

 

[Deus Irae]

What defines a "reach" or a "steal" is where the Patriots have players rated and where they take them, not what some guy on a draft site says, the experts are the scouts and personel people not the "draft experts," most of whom have never drafted a player. Gil Brandt has credibility, Mel Kiper doesn't, in fact, iirc kiper actually changed 9 of his first round selections to those of McShay the night before the Draft, hardly the mark of someone who has done the evaluations for themself.

You've got it pretty much backwards.

 

[Oswlek]

I find it hilarious that people argue over something as trivial as "reach" vs. "steal".

If a guy can play, he was a good pick. If he can't he wasn't. Simple as that.

 

[townes]

You've got it pretty much backwards.

Your right, Draft Countdown should make their picks, the Patriots board is irrelevant, i don't know why they waste so much time scouting and evaluating prospects for themselves when all they have to do is take the next player on Scott Wrights board, especially if he has identified them as a need. They would have so much more success if they did so, and wouldn't be the colossal failures they have been if only they would stop doing the work for themselves.


This argument does take place every year, and it's those who want desperately to crap on Belichik who insist that he's screwing it up when the reality is that they draft as well or better than any team in football, and the results prove it. Steve in Fall River and Co. can shriek all they want about how bad they are at drafting but it is garbage.


All that matters is how they stack the prospects and how good a job they do getting those they want most, the rest is just speculation. I love the draft and follow it every year, but I'll defer to them on the rankings until the players shows they were either right or wrong.

 

[Dragda]

You underestimate the ravages of chemo. Again ASSUMING he then appears cancer free, he first needs to rest and recuperate from chemo and THEN work hard to rebuild his strength and endurance, greatly weakened, to the level required for football at an elite level. PUP at a minimum. There's a reason teams discounted his talent; they mostly figured 2011 was a gonner at the least, if he ever plays NFL football. That said, I think a 5th on him was a great pick by BB. Character guy, too.

my neighbor was riddled with cancer last year. He underwent chemo and made a complete recovery. The bad news is that chemo damaged his liver so he's undergoing treatment for that. You just never know how it will turn out, but I have a good feeling about Cannon (for whatever that is worth).

 

[Shelterdog]

Kiper, whom so many here love to bash, is not general consensus. He's one draft geek among many. Other than at the very top of the draft, steal/reach isn't generally about a few spots up or down, but about many spots or rounds, and that's generally the result of all sorts of scouts, analysts, geeks, etc... anticipating the basic flow of how a draft will fall. It's not just non-NFL people who help form these opinions, either.

Define "general consensus" however you want, it doesn't matter to the point. The point is that whatever the "general consensus" of public information says about how where players should be picked bears only a passing resemblance to the actual value the 32 teams place on a player and certainly doesn't tell you that you would have been able to draft Ridley at 90 (or 125) because the "general consensus" is that he was more of a fifth or sixth round pick.

 

[townes]

You've got it pretty much backwards.

Have what backwards, be specific, do you really think kiper has more expertise than Brandt?


If the "experts" opinions are what really matters then how do you explain Vollmer, who no experts had rated and was on the Patriots board in the 2nd.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your right, Draft Countdown should make their picks, the Patriots board is irrelevant, i don't know why they waste so much time scouting and evaluating prospects for themselves when all they have to do is take the next player on Scott Wrights board, especially if he has identified them as a need. They would have so much more success if they did so, and wouldn't be the colossal failures they have been if only they would stop doing the work for themselves.


This argument does take place every year, and it's those who want desperately to crap on Belichik who insist that he's screwing it up when the reality is that they draft as well or better than any team in football, and the results prove it. Steve in Fall River and Co. can shriek all they want about how bad they are at drafting but it is garbage.

Actually, I didn't say anything like what your putting forward. You're now arguing strawmen. However, the ridiculousness of your position is demonstrated time and again by the Raiders and that team's love of speed.

Also, to take an extreme example:

Player "A" is removed from 28 draft boards because of character problems. Of the 4 remaining teams, 3 of them assign him only a 7th round grade. All scouts, off-the-record GMs and coaches, and draft analysts have the player at no higher than a 6th round grade. The final team assigns him a 2nd round grade and drafts him in the 3rd.

To the team, he was good value. To everyone else, he was a major reach. Since we don't have complete absolute knowledge of all 32 draft boards, we have to go with the best we have, and that's the general consensus.

You know this, and you apply it when it's not your favorite team. Don't be a sucker just because it's your favorite team's draft that you're evaluating.

 

[BTTA]

You've got it pretty much backwards.

Actually, I think you do, because it uses analysis from outside the NFL teams as the starting point. None of those analysis are relevant, or significant. They are the carnival barkers of the whole process. The only boards that define reach and steal are those of the team's doing the picking. Everyone else is just an amateur or professional media person. The only football professionals are employed by the teams.

 

[BTTA]

To everyone else, he was a major reach. Since we don't have complete absolute knowledge of all 32 draft boards, we have to go with the best we have, and that's the general consensus.

No, we don't have to go with that. And, there is no general consensus of the 32 draft boards, because no one ever sees all of them, certainly not in time to create a consensus prior to the draft being held.

So instead of using real data, which you can't get access to, you borrow meaningless data and call it valid.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

my neighbor was riddled with cancer last year. He underwent chemo and made a complete recovery. The bad news is that chemo damaged his liver so he's undergoing treatment for that. You just never know how it will turn out, but I have a good feeling about Cannon (for whatever that is worth).

My field is cancer research, so I thought I'd chime in.

All cancers are treated differently, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma is one of the "better" cancer diagnoses not only because the recovery rate is high but also because there are more modern drugs available that are far less toxic than "traditional" chemotherapy and radiation.

These include the humany antibody Rituxan, which prompts your own body to fight it off. Also there are two radioimmunotherapy agents, Zevalin and Bexxar, that hold even more promise IMO and have relatively low side effects.

I'm not saying he won't have hurdles, bad days, some bad reactions, and some low energy, but he will have to endure a lot less than some other types of cancer patients with less-treatable tumor types (like Ted Kennedy's neuroblastoma, or pancreatic cancer, and many others).

being young and somewhat fit also helps

Just FYI...

 

[Shelterdog]

No, we don't have to go with that. And, there is no general consensus of the 32 draft boards, because no one ever sees all of them, certainly not in time to create a consensus prior to the draft being held.

So instead of using real data, which you can't get access to, you borrow meaningless data and call it valid.

Exactly right. The bottom line is we just can't know with any certainty whether Ridley (or pretty much any player) was an overdraft or not.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Exactly right. The bottom line is we just can't know with any certainty whether Ridley (or pretty much any player) was an overdraft or not.

About the only thing we can say for sure is that if the Patriots take player X in slot Y, they had him ranked no worse than slot Y.